Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[RashanGary]

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.


This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it. Look at step 2. I think that is a concept you haven't quite wrapped your mind around. It's called forming a conjecture, or and idea of what you think will happen before it's proven. It's fun for those of us who wonder why and like to challenge ourselves. Patler brings some great stuff. He seems to have that type of mind, but he's not stating his theory in my opinion.

[retailguy]

Maybe in your own mind you have theories and ideas of what you think is coming (not what already happened), I don't think you really put them out there though. It would be nice to hear what you think, not what you know once in a while. Knowing things is boring. Thinking things is open for debate and fun.

personally, I think it's easy to discern what Patler thinks. The facts he posts lead you to an obvious conclusion most of the time.

Why doesn't he state it? Simple, he knows he rarely has the "full information" to make a decision. Sometimes, the Packers haven't publicized it, and more often, full information requires the future. Since it hasn't happened yet, it isn't over. (Favre is a perfect example. It isn't likely that he'll have great success with the Vikings, but it is certainly possible. The future events will reveal that.)

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

Not to be rude, RG, you've obviously lived more life than me and could probably school me in about 100 aspects that you're experienced in, but. . .

What the hell did you read? Are you just waking up from a dream and responding to what you imagined? Show me one point where I said Patler should know things beyond doubt before they happen. Not only did I not say that, I said the exact opposite. Again, not to be rude, but I don't know how to say I question your ability to read and reason without being rude.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't drawing comparisons to you specifically. That wasn't my intent. If you want to own it, that's on you, not me, but i wasn't inferring anything.

What I was saying is that unlike many in this forum, he doesn't draw conclusions before the end. That's all. I think it's an admirable quality that many of us could emulate.

[RashanGary]

And like I said, I think it's obvious Patler has a scientific mind. Some of the details he remembers show me that he thought about possible scenarios, formed an opinion, and then waited to see how it played out.

Either he remembers everything he's ever read (I highly doubt) or he files what he reads based on perceived importance (I highly lean toward). The reason I think it's one of these two things is because the details he brings up and remembers are so important to the conclusion. They are the exact details you would want to remember to reinforce an opinion.

Clearly, Patler is a very curious, intelligent, wise person with great insight. I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down. I think I enjoy many of the same things as Patler. I think some of the things that drive him, also drive me. I'd just like to see a more clear step 2 so we can find out if his theory was right or wrong, so we know what his theory is.

I think I know he has them but without the step 2, I wonder what the hell his motivation is. I understand scientific curiosity. It's one of my main drives. Just discussing facts with no real purpose, that I don't really relate to and without a step 2, that's what it feels like to me.

[Scott Campbell]

This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it.

I prefer the Brett Favre gunslinger methodology of logic.

[RashanGary]

And if you want my conjecture on Brett Favre with the Vikings (note to you, a conjecture is not a proven fact. It's a theory, directly stated, to be proven or disproven and I'm open to either. Because I put the Packers over my ego, I prefer to be wrong)

I think Brett Favre will succeed in Minnesota. (this is a direct example of step 2)

1. He has a great defense that can keep even the worst QB in ever game
2. Brett Favre isn't even close to the worst QB. He's a great upgrade over what they had last year IMO
3. I believe Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the game


I think Brett Favre will succeed. I think the Vikings will be very hard to overcome. I did not want to see Favre with the Vikings for this reason.

I don't ever remember Patler insinuating Favre would fail in Minnesota. You saying you understand him and then citing that as an example just shows how you make shit up as you go. I've never heard Patler even come close to making a theory on the matter, but if he did, I think he'd be a lot closer to the one I made than the one you said you saw him post.

[Scott Campbell]

I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down.

Not so much that, as it sounds like you're asking him to improve as a poster. That's probably not going to be a very popular position.

[retailguy]

LOL. I illustrated the Favre example PRECISELY because he has not weighed in. That was the point. :P

[falco]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.

[Scott Campbell]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.

I've never seen arms like that on a kicker.

[cpk1994]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.

I've never seen arms like that on a kicker.

He must have been working out with Ed Hochuli.

[MJZiggy]

I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down.

Not so much that, as it sounds like you're asking him to improve as a poster. That's probably not going to be a very popular position.

Probably not actually possible either.

PATLER: Please check your PM.

[RashanGary]

LOL. I illustrated the Favre example PRECISELY because he has not weighed in. That was the point. :P

got me. I feel a little sheepish. . .



There are a lot of people with scientific minds that will make a theory and set out to prove or disprove it. Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun.

Some people can't have fun with it because they're either sarcastic, rude and intolerant or they are stubborn and frustrating to deal with because they never admit wrong. Those people always wonder why everyone is out to get them. Well, look in the mirror.

[retailguy]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society.

[Patler]

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

OK, lets discuss that.

When Sherman's contract was extended, who predicted he would be gone within a couple years? Patler. (Was it still JSO then?)

Who predicted the Giants would win the playoff game? Patler. (I took a lot of crap for that before AND after the game.)

Who predicted that Favre would retire shortly after the Giant's game? Patler. (Some thought I was crazy because of the Packers success, but I stuck to it. After it actually happened I was begged to predict a positive Packer story!)

When Bretsky asked what would happen if Favre wanted to return (before he even asked to return) who said he would never play for the Packers again? Patler.

Before playoffs even started, who predicted that the UW Men and UW Women would win NCAA hockey Championships in the same year? Patler. (My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)

Who predicted at the end of 2005 that Atlas Herrion would be a starter at guard in 2006? Patler. (OK, so I was wrong!)

I could go on, but I really see no need to defend myself. I really don't care if others know my opinion or not. If I persuade you to accept it as yours without browbeating you with the fact that it is mine, I've accomplished my goals!

[Scott Campbell]

Holy crap, enough already. We've created a monster.